DOCSLIB.ORG

OHA 8964 Technical Report: Marijuana Contaminant Testing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OHA 8964 Technical Report: Marijuana Contaminant Testing TECHNICAL REPORT: OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY’S PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHICH TYPES OF CONTAMINANTS TO TEST FOR IN CANNABIS PRODUCTS, AND LEVELS FOR ACTION Author David G. Farrer, Ph.D. Public Health Toxicologist PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION Technical Report: Oregon Health Authority’s Process to Determine Which Types of Contaminants to Test for in Cannabis Products, and Levels for Action* Author: David G. Farrer, Ph.D., Public Health Toxicologist Acknowledgments OHA would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their valuable contributions to the development of cannabis testing Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 333-7-0010 through 333-7-0100 and OAR 333-7-0400 and 333-7-0410 Exhibit A) and this report: Brian Boling Rose Kachadoorian Laboratory Program Manager Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Jeremy L. Sackett Cascadia Labs, Cannabis Safety Theodore R. Bunch, Jr. Institute, and Oregon Cannabis Pesticide Analytical and Response Association Center Coordination Leader Oregon Department of Agriculture Bethany Sherman Oregon Growers Analytical and Keith Crosby Cannabis Safety Institute Technical Director Synergistic Pesticide Lab Shannon Swantek Oregon Environmental Laboratory Ric Cuchetto Accreditation Program, Public The Cannabis Chemist Health Division, Oregon Health Authority Camille Holladay Lab Director Rodger B. Voelker, Ph.D. Synergistic Pesticide Lab Lab Director Oregon Growers Analytical Mowgli Holmes, Ph.D. Phylos Bioscience and Cannabis Safety Institute For information on this report, contact David Farrer at [email protected]. * Please cite this publication as follows: Farrer DG. Technical report: Oregon Health Authority’s process to decide which types of contaminants to test for in cannabis. Oregon Health Authority. 2015 December. TABLE OF CONTENTS Background .....................................................................................................1 Microbiological ...............................................................................................2 Water activity .........................................................................................2 Pesticides ........................................................................................................3 Target analyte list development ...............................................................3 Developing action levels .........................................................................5 Uncertainties ..........................................................................................6 Solvents ..........................................................................................................8 Background ............................................................................................8 Target analyte list development ...............................................................8 Developing action levels .........................................................................8 Uncertainties ..........................................................................................9 References ....................................................................................................12 Definitions .....................................................................................................12 BACKGROUND This report describes the process the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) followed to establish the list of contaminants for cannabis testing. It also describes how OHA established an action level for each of these contaminants. These lists and action levels have now been implemented in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 333-7-0010 through 333-7-0100 and OAR 333-7-0400 and 333-7-0410 Exhibit A). This report documents the rationale and justifications for: • The selection of target contaminants for testing; and • Testing regimes for cannabis and cannabis-derived products. The three major categories of contaminants targeted for testing include: • Microbiological contaminants; • Pesticides; and • Solvents. OHA is committed to evidence-based decision making when drafting and implementing OARs. As research into cannabis use and safety advances, the OARs related to cannabis testing and this report will be revised and updated to reflect the state of the science. Not all types of cannabis products need testing for all three of these contaminant categories. Below is information on each of the three major categories of contaminants targeted for testing. In developing the OARs and this document, OHA relied on the expertise of individuals from various organizations named in the “Acknowledgments” section. Their expertise ranged from pesticide use in Oregon, pesticide regulation in Oregon, analytical chemistry, laboratory accreditation, microbiology, cannabis processing and cannabis cultivation. They also represented a range of organizations including the Oregon Department of Agriculture, commercial analytical chemistry laboratories, state laboratories and state laboratory accreditation personnel. Throughout this document, this group will be referred to as the “Technical Expert Work Group” or the “work group.” 1 — Technical report: Oregon Health Authority’s process to determine which types of contaminants to test for in cannabis products, and levels for action MICROBIOLOGICAL The Technical Expert Work Group recommended that cannabis products be tested for E. coli and Salmonella. The work group also advised that products not be allowed to go to market if any Salmonella is detected or if E. coli is detected at levels higher than 100 CFU/g. In general, bacteria cannot survive either the drying or heating processes that occur when cannabis is prepared for smoking. Salmonella, however, can survive when very little moisture is present, and it can easily infect humans. E. coli does not usually pose a significant health risk; however, its presence indicates poor sanitary conditions and that other fecal bacteria may be present. Testing for both organisms in cannabis products will, therefore, protect public health. The only other microbial organisms of concern on cannabis are several species of Aspergillus mold. Aspergillus can cause respiratory infections in individuals who inhale it if they are severely immune-compromised. These individuals should avoid smoking cannabis. However, OHA Administrative Rules do not require testing for Aspergillus; the mold is so common in the environment that a person could pick it up many different ways. A positive test result would not mean the product is unsafe for most uses for most people. Therefore, the work group recommended that cannabis products intended for smoking and other inhalation uses include a warning about this risk for people with suppressed immune systems. Some states have required testing of cannabis for aflatoxins produced by certain Aspergillus species. Oil-rich seeds must be present to produce these toxins on plants. Commercial cannabis does not contain these seeds. As a result, the Technical Expert Work Group recommends against such testing. Water activity Water activity is a measure of how moist something is in units called “Aw”. Most pathogenic microbial organisms cannot grow when water activity is less than Aw 0.65. Testing for water activity and requiring water activity levels to fall below Aw 0.65 will ensure the absence of microbial growth on cannabis products during storage and before sale. Technical report: Oregon Health Authority’s process to determine which types of contaminants to test for in cannabis products, and levels for action — 2 PESTICIDES Target analyte list development Work group members established three lists of target analytes related to pesticides. OHA compiled the three lists and filtered it by criteria agreed upon by the work group. • Work group members created the first list as described in Appendix 1 of a white paper titled “Pesticide Use on Cannabis” published by the Cannabis Safety Institute in June 2015.(1) This list contained 123 active ingredients. • The work group generated the second list by identifying compounds that overlapped between various other lists. This included the first list described above; Oregon, Nevada or Colorado regulations for medical or recreational marijuana; and other lists. • The work group generated the third list based on integrated pest management guidance for several crops grown in the Pacific Northwest. It also included a search of the Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL) database. Additionally, work group members made a list of the active ingredients in pesticide products available at a local hardware store. Once this information was compiled, work group members compared their master list to the first two lists described above and removed any redundancies. OHA compiled these three submitted lists and removed duplicates. This resulted in a starting list of 188 pesticide analytes. Table 1 describes the process by which the work group scored and filtered the compiled list of 188 pesticide analytes. First, they scored active ingredients based on general (human) toxicity, analytical capacity, detection frequency in cannabis samples in Oregon and general availability. All scoring parameters were reduced to a four-point scale (from zero to three). Then, OHA added scores across the parameters to get a composite score for each pesticide active ingredient. An OHA toxicologist initially scored active ingredients for toxicity. An Oregon State University toxicologist and an Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) representative with some training
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2.13 Fipronil Effect on the Frequency of Anomalous Brood in Honeybee Reared in Vitro Carina A.S
    Hazards of pesticides to bees - 12th International Symposium of the ICP-PR Bee Protection Group, Ghent (Belgium), September 15-17, 2014 2.13 Fipronil effect on the frequency of anomalous brood in honeybee reared in vitro Carina A.S. Silva1, Elaine C.M. Silva-Zacarin2, Caio E.C. Domingues2, Fábio C. Abdalla2, Osmar Malaspina3, Roberta C.F. Nocelli1*. 1CCA - Centro de Ciências Agrarias, UFSCar - Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Rod. Anhanguera, SP 330, Km. 174, Araras – SP, Brasil. Email: [email protected]; Email: [email protected], *Phone: +55 (19) 3543- 2595 2LABEF – Laboratório de Biologia Estrutural e Funcional. Universidade Federal de São Carlos – UFSCar. Rodovia João Leme dos Santos (SP-264), Km. 110, Bairro Itinga, Sorocaba – SP, Brasil. 3CEIS – Centro de Estudos de Insetos Sociais. Universidade Estadual “Julio de Mesquita Filho” - UNESP. Av. 24 A, 1515, Bela Vista, Rio Claro – SP, Brasil. Abstract Larvae of honeybee workers were exposed to the insecticide fipronil during the feeding phase. To evaluate the effect of fipronil in the post-embryonic development of africanized Apis mellifera, bioassays of toxicity were done. The bioassays were performed by acute exposure applying 1μL of distilled water for control (I) and for experiments: 0.5 ng a.i./µL of fipronil; 5 ng a.i./µL of fipronil and 20 ng a.i./ µL of fipronil. Triplicates were performed for all treatments. The results showed that the rate of anomalous pupae in exposed honeybees was statistically significant in relationship to the control (p <0:03). The most frequent abnormalities were: high pigmentation on the proximal and distal larval body and body malformation, such as absence of head and limbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Validation Report 28
    EURL for Cereals and Feeding stuff National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Validation Report 28 Determination of pesticide residues in hay by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS (QuEChERS method) Susan Strange Herrmann Mette Erecius Poulsen February 2018 Page 2 of 67 CONTENT: 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Principle of analysis......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Calibration curves............................................................................................................................ 4 5. Validation parameters...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Criteria for the acceptance of validation results ............................................................................. 5 7. Results and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6 9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1a. GCMSMS transitions used for validation of pesticides in Hay ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) Ddvp (Dichlorvos) Diazinon Malathion Parathion
    CHLORPYRIFOS (DURSBAN) DDVP (DICHLORVOS) DIAZINON MALATHION PARATHION Method no.: 62 Matrix: Air Procedure: Samples are collected by drawing known volumes of air through specially constructed glass sampling tubes, each containing a glass fiber filter and two sections of XAD-2 adsorbent. Samples are desorbed with toluene and analyzed by GC using a flame photometric detector (FPD). Recommended air volume and sampling rate: 480 L at 1.0 L/min except for Malathion 60 L at 1.0 L/min for Malathion Target concentrations: 1.0 mg/m3 (0.111 ppm) for Dichlorvos (PEL) 0.1 mg/m3 (0.008 ppm) for Diazinon (TLV) 0.2 mg/m3 (0.014 ppm) for Chlorpyrifos (TLV) 15.0 mg/m3 (1.11 ppm) for Malathion (PEL) 0.1 mg/m3 (0.008 ppm) for Parathion (PEL) Reliable quantitation limits: 0.0019 mg/m3 (0.21 ppb) for Dichlorvos (based on the RAV) 0.0030 mg/m3 (0.24 ppb) for Diazinon 0.0033 mg/m3 (0.23 ppb) for Chlorpyrifos 0.0303 mg/m3 (2.2 ppb) for Malathion 0.0031 mg/m3 (0.26 ppb) for Parathion Standard errors of estimate at the target concentration: 5.3% for Dichlorvos (Section 4.6.) 5.3% for Diazinon 5.3% for Chlorpyrifos 5.6% for Malathion 5.3% for Parathion Status of method: Evaluated method. This method has been subjected to the established evaluation procedures of the Organic Methods Evaluation Branch. Date: October 1986 Chemist: Donald Burright Organic Methods Evaluation Branch OSHA Analytical Laboratory Salt Lake City, Utah 1 of 27 T-62-FV-01-8610-M 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorpyrifos
    United State. Office of Water EPA 440/5-86~05 Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards September 1986 Amy l. lea~erry Agency Criteria and Standards Division Washington DC 20460 Water &EPA Ambient Wat'er Quality Criteria for Chlorpyrifos - 1986 &~IENT AQUATIC LIFE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR CHLORPYRIFOS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES DULUTH, MINNESOTA NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND NOTICES This document has been reviewed by the Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This document is availaryle to the public throu~h the National Technical Inf0rmation Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. 11 FOREWORD Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare that might be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water~ including ground water. This document is a revision of proposed criteria based upon consideration of comments received from other Federal agencies~ State agencies~ special interest groups~ and individual scientists. Criteria contained in this document replace any previously published EPA aquatic life criteria for the same pollutant(s). The term "water quality criteria" is used in two sections of the Clean Water Act~ section 304(a)(1) and section 303(c)(2).
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Insect and Mite Pests in Vegetable Gardens
    Managing Insect and Mite Pests in Vegetable Gardens egetable gardening is an enjoyable pastime. the surface of a leaf when feeding, while the same The result of your labors is fresh, home- caterpillar may eat great chunks of leaves when Vgrown produce. Frequently, growing your mature. own vegetables is even less expensive than buying An insectÕs mouthparts can be a key to under- not-so-fresh produce from the market. standing the type of damage caused by a pest. However, producing your own vegetables can be Insects with sucking mouthparts feed by piercing challenging. One of the greatest challenges is to suc- leaves or fruit. Damage appears as pock marks or cessfully control insect pests. Fortunately, there are mottled leaves. Insects with chewing mouthparts numerous management alternatives that vegetable chew holes in plants. If you can recognize the type gardeners may consider when dealing with insects of feeding, you can select the proper insecticides and other pests. These include cultural, biological, (i.e., stomach poisons for chewing insects). and management controls and, last but not least, chemical controls. Plan ahead Understanding insects When planning a vegetable garden, anticipate the pests that may occur during the year. Consider all There are approximately 30,000 insect species in management practices that will help deal with the Texas. Fortunately, fewer than 100 species are rou- pests before they become problems. Then, develop a tine pests in vegetable gardens. Most insects found management plan and put it into use before prob- in gardens are either incidental or beneficial, con- lems occur. Use your past experience as a guide in tributing to pollination, the balance of nature, or anticipating pests for the upcoming season.
    [Show full text]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Toxic Substances
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Biorational and Natural Products for Vegetable Crop Management in Commercial Market Gardens and Home Gardens
    Report to the Ohio IPM Program on a Vegetable Team Project funded by the Ohio IPM Block Grant Program, 2005 Title: Evaluation of biorational and natural products for vegetable crop management in commercial market gardens and home gardens Investigators: Celeste Welty (entomologist), Sally Miller (plant pathologist), Doug Doohan (weed scientist); Mark Bennett, Matt Kleinhenz, Bob Precheur (horticulturists). Background: The insect pests and diseases that affect vegetable crops are the same whether grown on large farms for commercial production or on small diversified farms or home gardens, but the management tactics preferred by growers are often different for the different scale operations. Many market gardeners prefer to avoid using conventional pesticides because of concern about human safety and environmental contamination. During the past few years, many biorational crop protection products have become available. While it is known that biorational products are safer to humans than conventional pesticides, it is not known whether they are effective in controlling the target pests that they claim to control. In addition to products for insect and disease control, there are many products that promote plant growth, such as microbial soil inoculants. There is little to no unbiased data available on efficacy of these products. This deficit is a limiting factor in formulating up-to-date extension recommendations for market gardens and home gardens. This project was an important first step in the development of a set of recommended garden IPM tactics that will include cultural controls to prevent or delay pest problems, along with biological controls and selective chemical controls. Objective: To evaluate efficacy of biorational products that are available for vegetable crop management, in comparison with standard conventional materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Qsar Analysis of the Chemical Hydrolysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides in Natural Waters
    QSAR ANALYSIS OF THE CHEMICAL HYDROLYSIS OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES IN NATURAL WATERS. by Kenneth K. Tanji Principal Investigator and Jonathan 1. Sullivan Graduate Research Assistant Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis Technical Completion Report Project Number W-843 August, 1995 University of California Water Resource Center The research leading to this report was supported by the University of California Water Resource Center as part of Water Resource Center Project W-843. Table of Contents Page Abstract 2 Problem and Research Objectives 3 Introduction 5 Theoretical Background 6 QSAR Methodology 7 Molecular Connectivity Theory 8 Organophosphorus Pesticides 12 Experimental Determination of Rates 15 Results and Discussion 17 Principal Findings and Significance 19 References 34 List of Tables Page Table 1. Statistical relationship between OP pesticides and first-order MC/'s. 30 Table 2. Inherent conditions of waters used in experimental work. 16 Table 3. Estimated half-lives for organophosphorus esters derived from model. 31 Table 4. Half-lives and first-order MCI' sfor model calibration data set. 31 Table 5. Experimental kinetic data for validation set compounds, Sacramento. 33 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Essential Features OfQSAR Modeling Methodology. 21 Figure 2. Regression plot for In hydrolysis rate vs. 1st order MCl' s. 22 Figure 3. a 3-D molecular model, a line-segment model and a graphical model. 23 Figure 4. Molecular connectivity index suborders. 24 Figure 5. Chlorpyrifos and its fourteen fourth order path/cluster fragments. 25 Figure 6. Abridged MClndex output. 26 Figure 7. Parent acids of most common organophosphorus pesticides. 12 Figure 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS
    Environmental Health Criteria 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION Please note that the layout and pagination of this web version are not identical with the printed version. Organophophorus insecticides: a general introduction (EHC 63, 1986) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 63 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES: A GENERAL INTRODUCTION This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization. Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1986 The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination
    [Show full text]
  • For Aldicarb Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Aldicarb
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances September 2007 Agency (7508P) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Aldicarb Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for Aldicarb List A Case Number 0140 Approved by: Date: Steven Bradbury, Ph.D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Page 2 of 191 Table of Contents Aldicarb Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team ........................................................................ 5 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 6 Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 8 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 II. Chemical Overview.................................................................................................................. 11 A. Chemical Identity..................................................................................................................11 B. Regulatory History ................................................................................................................12 C. Use and Usage Profile...........................................................................................................12 D. Tolerances .............................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]